Smt. P.Uma V. The Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub Division and The Tahashildar, Ramanagara TQ and R. Ronald Sebastian

WP/7294/2020

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Smt. P.Uma against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which declared a sale deed void and forfeited the land due to alleged violations of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that she was not served notice of the proceedings and that the Tribunal erred in dismissing her appeal on grounds of limitation without considering her circumstances. The court found that the provisions under which the land was forfeited were omitted in July 2020, and since the proceedings were pending at that time, they abated, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690449 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Limitation Act, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R GOWDA
• Assessee Lawyers: M KESHAVAREDDY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Land Reforms; Sale deed; Writ petition; Agricultural Family
• Section: 5; 25; 79A; 83; 79B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.7294/2020 (LR) BETWEEN : SMT. P.UMA W/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS TAILOR NO.938, 7TH CROSS J T ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLCOK SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. KESHAVAREDDHY., ADVOCATE) AND : 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. 2. THE TAHASHILDAR RAMANGARA TQ RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. 3. R. RONALD SEBASTIAN S/O Y K RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO.D-10 GROUND FLOOR 2 BSNL QUARTERS D BLOCK 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 075. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) HOLD THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 79-A AND 79-B OF THE ACT b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA, DTD 18.03.2015 VIDE ANNX-H. c) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU DTD 26.11.2019 IN APPEAL NO.481/2016 VIDE ANNX-T. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first and the second respondents are heard for final disposal of the petition, and on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice to the third respondent is waived. 3 2. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order dated 18.03.2015 in No.LRF 79 (R) 74/2009-10 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagar Sub-division, Ramanagar District (the first respondent) and the order dated 26.11.2019 in Appeal No. 481/2016 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal). The first respondent by the impugned order dated 18.03.2019, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, the KLR Act), has declared the sale deed dated 10.09.2008 executed in favour of the petitioner for the land measuring 13 guntas in Sy. No. 218 of Ittamadu Village, Ramanagara Taluk and District (the subject land) void for violations of the provisions of Section 79A and B of the KLR Act and for forfeiture of the subject land in favour of the State. Later, the first respondent has corrected the earlier order dated18.03.2015, by the order dated 24.08.2015, 4 correcting the name of the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under section 25 the KLR Act. The petitioner’s appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No. 481/2016 is dismissed by the order dated 26.11.2019 rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. The petitioner’s case is that she hails from an agricultural family and she has purchased the subject land in the year 2008 with the assistance of her family members. She is a housewife but was engaged in tailoring business for a couple of years during the years 2008-09 and 2009-10. She has filed the income tax returns for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10, and because, she did not have any income for the subsequent years, or the years prior to 2008-09, she has not filed income tax returns except for these two years. The petitioner, even before purchasing the subject property under the sale deed dated 10.09.2008, 5 has obtained appropriate certificate from the jurisdictional Deputy Tahasildar for affirmation that she is from agriculturists family and the certificate, which is dated 22.08.2008, is furnished at the time of registration of the sale deed dated 10.09.2008. 4. The petitioner’s further case is that for personal reasons she had to relocate from Bidadi to Bangalore. The first respondent has initiated proceeding in LRF (79): 74/2009 under section 83 of the KLR Act for annulment of the sale deed dated 10.09.2008 on a report dated 05.09.2009 filed by the Tahasildar, Ramanagar taluk [the second respondent). But, she is not served with the notice of the proceeding, and in fact, the first respondent has recorded that she is not served with notice because she does not reside at the address as mentioned in the sale deed. She, who had borrowed monies for purchase of the subject land under the sale deed dated 10.09.2008, has transferred 6 the same under the sale deed dated 31.01.2013 in favour of Sri Ronald Sebastian without the knowledge of the proceeding in LRF (79):74/2009. She has later ascertained that the first respondent has initiated proceeding in LRF (79): 74/2009 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.09.2008, and the proceeding in LRF (79): 74/2009, which was dormant for over six years without any effective hearing, is concluded by the order dated 18.03.2015 with the first respondent declaring that the sale deed dated 10.9.2008 is in violation of the provisions of both section 79A and B of the KLR Act and for forfeiture of the subject land for the benefit of the State. 5. The petitioner has filed her appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No. 481/2016 impugning the first respondent’s order dated 18.03.2015 in LRF (79): 74/2009 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation stating that 7 the delay in filing the appeal is only because she was not aware of the initiation of the proceeding in No.LRF (79): 74/2009 and she is not served with any notice of the proceeding. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 has dismissed the petitioner’s application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and consequentially the appeal, on the ground that the petitioner has filed the appeal on 08.06.2016 i.e., nine months after she is issued with a certified copy of the order dated 18.03.2015 but she has not sufficiently explained such delay. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation though the learned counsel was never heard on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal has erred in considering the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay overlooking the fact that even according to the 8 impugned order dated 18.03.2015 the petitioner is not served with notice of the proceedings. The Tribunal should have examined the petitioner’s specific case, substantiated by documents, that she and her family members are residents of Bidadi and the family members own agricultural lands, and it is only the petitioner and her husband, for personal reasons, who have shifted their residence to Bengaluru. 7. The learned counsel argues that the Tribunal has failed to consider the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner in the light of the settled law that the Courts and Tribunals must be liberal in considering the question of condonation of delay when substantive rights are involved, and the Tribunal has erred in concluding, without considering material circumstances, that the petitioner is not diligent in filing the appeal. The learned counsel, relying upon the RTC for the land in survey No. 211 of Ittamadu village, 9 Ramanagar Taluk and District and the income tax returns filed by the petitioner for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10, also argues that the petitioner is able to demonstrate that she is from agriculturists family who own agricultural lands and her income was below the prescribed limit during the relevant years. 8. Lastly, the learned counsel argues that the provisions of section 79A and B of the KLR Act are omitted with effect from the month of July 2020; first with the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Ordinance 2020 and later by the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020. The State has clarified that all proceedings which were pending as of the date of the omission of the provisions of section 79A and B of the KLR Act would abate. The petitioner’s challenge to the first respondent’s impugned order dated 18.03.2015 was pending consideration before this Court as of the date of 10 the omission of the aforesaid provisions and as such, the proceedings would abate in any event. 9. When the facts and circumstances of the case are examined in the light of the change in law with the omission of the provisions of Section 79A and B of the KLR Act and the clarification by the State (which is brought on record by the learned Additional Government Advocate) that all proceedings which were pending before different Courts would abate, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 18.03.2015 cannot be sustained, and necessary directions must ensue to the jurisdictional Tahasildar (the third respondent) to restore the revenue entries for the subject land in favour of Sri Ronald Sebastian who has purchased the subject land from the petitioner under the sale deed dated 31.01.2013. Hence, the following: 11 ORDER The writ petition is allowed and the Order dated 18.03.2015 in LRF.79(R)74/2009-10 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagar Sub-division, Ramanagar District is quashed, and the jurisdictional Tahasildar (the third respondent) is directed to restore the revenue entries in favour of Sri Ronald Sebastian for the land measuring 13 guntas in Sy.No. 218 of Ittamadu Village, Ramanagara Taluk and District. Sd/- JUDGE nv "